Candide

Voltaire

Chapters 27–30

Key Facts

1.

Pangloss
gave instruction in metaphysico-theologico-cosmolo-nigology. He
proved admirably that there cannot possibly be an effect without
a cause and that in this best of all possible worlds the baron’s
castle was the most beautiful of all castles and his wife the best
of all possible baronesses. —It is clear, said he, that things cannot
be otherwise than they are, for since everything is made to serve
an end, everything necessarily serves the best end. Observe: noses were
made to support spectacles, hence we have spectacles. Legs, as anyone
can plainly see, were made to be breeched, and so we have breeches.
. . . Consequently, those who say everything is well are uttering
mere stupidities; they should say everything is for the best.

This explanation of Pangloss’s optimistic
philosophy is quoted from Chapter 1. His
philosophy is both the most important point for debate among the
novel’s characters and one of the main targets of Voltaire’s satirical
jabs. Pangloss’s—and his student Candide’s—indomitable belief that
human beings live in “the best of all possible worlds” comes under
brutal attack by the horrific events that they live through. Their
belief broadly resembles the conclusions of a number of the most
influential philosophers of Voltaire’s time. In particular, the
philosopher Leibniz famously maintains that, since the world was
created by God, and since the mind of God is the most benevolent
and capable mind imaginable, the world must be the best world imaginable.
Under such a system, humans perceive evil only because they do not
understand the force governing the world and thus do not know that
every ill exists only for a greater good. Candide is
widely thought to be Voltaire’s sarcastic retort to Leibniz. In
this quotation, Voltaire attacks not only philosophical optimism
but also the foibles and errors of Enlightenment philosophy. Enlightenment
philosophers such as Leibniz focused a great deal of attention on
the interplay of cause and effect. Pangloss’s argument about spectacles
and breeches demonstrates a ridiculous inability to properly distinguish
between cause and effect. Spectacles fit noses not because God created
noses to fit spectacles, as Pangloss claims, but the other way around.
The obviousness of this point is meant to echo the obviousness of
the flaws Voltaire observes in the Enlightenment philosophical process.

2.

—A
hundred times I wanted to kill myself, but always I loved life more.
This ridiculous weakness is perhaps one of our worst instincts;
is anything more stupid than choosing to carry a burden that really
one wants to cast on the ground? to hold existence in horror, and
yet to cling to it? to fondle the serpent which devours us till
it has eaten out our heart? —In the countries through which I have
been forced to wander, in the taverns where I have had to work,
I have seen a vast number of people who hated their existence; but I
never saw more than a dozen who deliberately put an end to their
own misery.

The old woman, after telling of the
rape, slavery, and cannibalism she has experienced, launches into
this speculation about suicide in Chapter 12.
The question of why more unfortunate people do not kill themselves
seems rational in the context of the calamitous, merciless world
of the novel. In Voltaire’s time, the first and easiest answer should
have been that God and Christian doctrine forbid suicide and that
those who kill themselves are consigned to spend eternity in hell.
However, the old woman’s very existence, as an illegitimate child
of a Pope, makes a statement against the church, and she does not
even consider this approach to the question of suicide. Perhaps
the implication is that hell cannot possibly be worse than life,
or perhaps the old woman, after her experiences, does not believe
in God or an afterlife. The pessimism of this passage is obvious
and fairly thorough. The one glimmer of hope that shines through
the old woman’s words comes from her assertion that people cling
to life because they “love” it, not because they are resigned or
because they fear eternal punishment. The serpent that is life is not
just tolerated but “fondle[d].” Human beings, then, naturally embrace
life—a “stupid” move, perhaps, but one that demonstrates passion,
strong will, and an almost heroic endurance.

3.

The
enormous riches which this rascal had stolen were sunk beside him
in the sea, and nothing was saved but a single sheep. —You see,
said Candide to Martin, crime is punished sometimes; this scoundrel
of a Dutch merchant has met the fate he deserved. —Yes, said Martin;
but did the passengers aboard his ship have to perish too? God punished
the scoundrel, the devil drowned the others.

In Chapter 20,
Candide and Martin engage in this debate over the sinking of Vanderdendur’s
ship. Candide, who tries throughout the novel to find support for
Pangloss’s optimistic faith in the workings of the world, sees Vanderdendur’s
fate as a sign that justice is sometimes served by disasters such
as shipwrecks, and thus that these disasters serve a higher purpose.
Martin, the consummate pessimist, points out quite reasonably that
there is no just reason why the other people on Vanderdendur’s ship
had to die along with him. Martin interprets the event as the product
of both God’s justice and the devil’s cruel mischief. Implied in
this statement is the pessimistic idea that the devil’s hand is
just as evident in the world as God’s, and the subversive idea that
God and the devil inadvertently cooperate in determining the course
of human affairs.

4.

. . . [W]hen they were not arguing, the boredom was so fierce that
one day the old woman ventured to say: —I should like to know which
is worse, being raped a hundred times by negro pirates, having a
buttock cut off, running the gauntlet in the Bulgar army, being
flogged and hanged in an auto-da-fé, being dissected and rowing
in the galleys—experiencing, in a word, all the miseries through
which we have passed—or else just sitting here and doing nothing?
—It’s a hard question, said Candide. These words gave rise to new
reflections, and Martin in particular concluded that man was bound
to live either in convulsions of misery or in the lethargy of boredom.

By Chapter 30,
Candide and his friends have money, peace, and security, and Candide
has finally married Cunégonde. But, as the old woman points out,
these rare blessings have not brought them happiness. This passage
implies that human beings do not suffer only as a result of political
oppression, violent crime, war, or natural disaster. They suffer
also from their own intrinsic flaws of chronic bad-temperedness
and restlessness. Up to this point, all of the characters have been
marvelously adept at getting themselves out of difficult or miserable
situations. Faced with boredom in the absence of suffering, however,
they cannot seem to find any way out on their own, and turn to “a
very famous dervish” for advice. The one site of unmixed goodness
and joy presented in the novel is the paradise of Eldorado, which
Candide and Cacambo choose to leave. At the time, their decision
to venture back into the world seems unwise. By this point in the
novel, however, the reader wonders in retrospect whether the plague
of boredom would not eventually have afflicted them in Eldorado
as severely as it does in Constantinople. The boredom, as Martin’s
words emphasize, seems to result not from an absence of happiness
but an absence of suffering.

5.

—You
are perfectly right, said Pangloss; for when man was put into the
garden of Eden, he was put there ut operaretur eum, so that he should
work it; this proves that man was not born to take his ease. —Let’s
work without speculating, said Martin; it’s the only way of rendering
life bearable. The whole little group entered into this laudable
scheme; each one began to exercise his talents. The little plot
yielded fine crops . . . and Pangloss sometimes used to say to Candide: —All
events are linked together in the best of possible worlds; for,
after all, if you had not been driven from a fine castle by being
kicked in the backside for love of Miss Cunégonde, if you hadn’t
been sent before the Inquisition, if you hadn’t traveled across
America on foot, if you hadn’t given a good sword thrust to the
baron, if you hadn’t lost all your sheep from the good land of Eldorado,
you wouldn’t be sitting here eating candied citron and pistachios.
—That
is very well put, said Candide, but we must go and work our garden.

This is the final passage of the novel.
The cure for the crushing boredom described in the previous quotation
has been found in the hard work of gardening. As Pangloss points
out, this cure recalls the state of mankind in the garden of Eden,
where man was master of all things. On their small plot of land
in Turkey, these characters seem to have a control over their destinies
that they could not achieve in their lives up until this point.
Instead of living at the mercy of circumstances, they are—literally—reaping
what they sow. It is, of course, surprising that this fictional
argument against optimism should be presented as a happy ending.
Given this ending, the reader might for the first time be inclined
to wonder whether Pangloss is right in claiming to live in “the
best of possible worlds.” But that claim and all arguments against
it are proscribed by the lifestyle the characters have discovered.
As Candide implies in his final line, gardening leaves no time for
philosophical speculation, and everyone is happier and more productive
as a result.

"Moreover, in the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve enjoyed the fruits of nature without having to work..."
I don't think that's true. Genesis 2:15 says, "The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it." Adam's purpose was to work even before the fall, which happens in Genesis 3. Also, I don't believe that Adam and Eve fell from God's grace. Yes, God said "you shall surely die" if you eat of the fruit, and they did, but it was actually God's grace that made them go out of the garden to prevent them from li... Read more→

What I got from this book is that whether Panglos is right or not. Whether Pessimism or Optimism prevailed, it doesn't do any good to philosophy over it.
Man was placed in the garden to work, not to be idle.

I believe that in the end Candide gave up on arguing - he simply realised the pointlessness of doing it and that true happiness will be by living life without thinking about it the whole time.

Honestly I don't think this book has anything to do with religion, right or wrong. Any type of theorizing, philosophy, formal religion, or even societal emphasis on what is important is represented as something negative. For example, all church figures are corrupt, philosophers Pangloss and Martin no matter what their opinions are either ignorant or miserable. The happiest (and eventually model) character is the farmer, who thinks and works for himself. Voltaire was jaded by the corruption of religion and hopeless optimism of philosophy and ... Read more→